Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Burlington.
I am pleased to rise today to speak against the NDP motion put forward by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Many Canadians, including privacy advocates, may not fully understand law enforcement investigative techniques. That is why I am very pleased to talk about this issue and to explain some of the myths surrounding it that are being put forward by the opposition and some members of the media.
Let me begin by stating that Canada has a strong regime to ensure that the privacy of individuals is respected and protected. Electronic surveillance tools are used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies in limited and proportionate ways which respect both the spirit and the letter of Canadian laws.
Indeed, the warranted interception of communications is a vital tool to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is of great value in complex criminal investigations, whether they involve threats to national security, organized crime, or in some cases terrorism.
However, our Conservative Government agrees that transparency and accountability are critical to providing Canadians with confidence that law enforcement and intelligence agencies are using electronic surveillance tools appropriately.
Given that the telecommunications environment is always changing, we constantly strive to determine whether or not we are striking the right balance between the government's fundamental responsibility for the safety and security of our citizens, and an accountable, transparent national security system that ensures individual privacy rights are protected.
Contrary to the suggestions of members opposite, it is important to note that only the most basic information about the identity of the individual, called “basic subscriber information”, can be released by telecommunications providers without a warrant.
When law enforcement and intelligence agencies make requests for basic subscriber information, it should not be viewed as an electronic surveillance practice, but a fundamental tool that these agencies need.
As a spokesperson for Bell Canada said:
Bell will only provide law enforcement and other authorized agencies with basic 411-style customer information such as name and address, which is defined as non-confidential and regulated by the CRTC [...] Any further information, or anything related to an unlisted number, requires a court order.
Another point that I believe has been lost in this discussion is that there is no need for the police to obtain court orders when individuals voluntarily provide this information.
We expect that telecommunication service providers abide both by the law and their agreements with their customers in terms of what they release to law enforcement and when they do so.
Let us take a moment to outline exactly what information is referred to as basic subscriber information. This is the basic information about a customer that is held by a telecommunications service provider. It comprises a subscriber's name, address, telephone number and, if applicable, email and IP address.
It does not, and I want to make this perfectly clear, include any information pertaining to the websites that a person has visited, the contents of any of their emails or text messages, or phone calls that have either been made or received by that individual.
We expect that telecommunication service providers only release basic subscriber information when it is for reasons of public good, such as to help police investigating a crime or, for example, identifying the next of kin.
Canadians can see past the inflated rhetoric from the NDP. This is not surveillance. This is not spying. This is certainly not snooping. Basic subscriber information gives law enforcement and intelligence agencies a very limited piece of information about an individual at a specific point in time. In fact, this is basic information that often proves vital to determining viable leads in an investigation.
With regard to another issue, electronic surveillance, the point I wish to make is one that cannot be stressed enough. In order to access the content of private communications of Canadians, law enforcement absolutely requires a warrant.
Another fact that cannot be forgotten is that key Canadian law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including the RCMP and CSIS, have independent review bodies that are empowered to investigate complaints regarding the conduct of officials and checking for compliance with the law.
The activities of CSIS, for example, are monitored by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. This review committee is composed of members appointed by the Governor in Council from members of the Queen's Privy Council.
In fact, currently there is a former NDP member of provincial parliament who sits on this very same committee. I would further note that CSIS, the RCMP, and CBSA are all subject to audits by relevant agents of Parliament, such as the federal Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor General.
Getting back to the issues of public reporting on electronic surveillance, we agree that transparency for Canadians and Parliament is also very important. In fact, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness presents an annual report to Parliament providing aggregate interception figures. That report is also available on Public Safety Canada's website for everyone to see.
We are extremely mindful that Canadians need to feel confident that investigative activities are conducted in an accountable and proportionate manner and as transparently as possible. For now, what we want to impress upon the members of the House, and all Canadians who may be tuning in today, is that our government will continue to ensure an appropriate balance between Canadians' privacy rights and the operational tools that ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.
In today's online world, requests for basic subscriber information are a necessity. These requests are made by law enforcement and intelligence agencies when there is a clear and demonstrated need to protect Canadians and Canadian interests. Requests for any further information that goes beyond simple identifiers, as I have just stated, must be done through judicial warrants.
Every country in the world has a duty to protect and respect its citizens, and that is exactly what Canada's laws do. Our government continues to expect that all requests for information about users of telecommunications services are done in strict accordance with Canadian laws.
